Cities Most Likely To Gain A Pro Sports Team Via Relocation Or Expansion By 2028

[JAYNYC]

This is inexcusably pathetic. The Miami Marlins may be on the move sooner than I expected.

SOURCE: ESPN.com

http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/2...ednesday-games

Empty Jeet seats: Marlins outdrawn by Double-A affiliate

The Miami Marlins, who lost 4-1 to the New York Mets on Wednesday night, were outdrawn that day by their Double-A affiliate, the Jacksonville Jumbo Shrimp.
The Marlins drew 6,150 fans. The Jacksonville team brought in 6,960 for its home opener Wednesday night.
For the three-game series against New York, the Marlins -- who lost Giancarlo Stanton, Christian Yelich, Dee Gordon and Marcell Ozuna as part of a rebuilding plan by the team's new ownership -- drew a total of 19,669 fans.


Through nine home games, the Marlins are averaging 12,641 fans per game, which includes an Opening Day crowd of 34,000. That's compared to a reported average attendance of 24,996 for their first nine games last season.
But it might not be apples to apples.
Before the season, the new Marlins management said it would announce only sold tickets for a particular game, which is one reason this season's attendance seems even more paltry. Last season, the Marlins reported a home attendance of 1.65 million fans. However, the Miami Herald later reported that the number of fans who actually paid for tickets was about 820,000. That would put last year's paid average at 10,123 fans per game.
A troubling sign this season is that the Marlins' home games have been against some of baseball's most marketable teams: the Chicago Cubs, the Boston Red Sox and the Mets, who at 10-1 have the best record in the majors.
The ownership of Bruce Sherman and Derek Jeter has been under heavy scrutiny since they agreed to buy the team for $1.2 billion last year. A version of a once-confidential report showed to potential investors how the team would achieve profitability, something that rubbed fans the wrong way, as the Marlins' highest-priced but best talent was sent elsewhere.
More recently, Miami was unable to come to terms with its most famous fan, "Marlins Man" Laurence Leavy, who had Marlins tickets since the team's debut in the league in 1993.

[ThePhun1]

Memphis and New Orleans is one thing but this does go to show that you have to analyze things further for larger and wealthier markets as well. Miami is not a pro sports or even college sports market and the franchises as well as the university benefited from having great teams. Otherwise, if you lived in South Florida, why'd you want to spend a hot day in a stadium or even an AC'd one when you can be out jogging or out on the beach?

That and a significant amount of the area is retirees and immigrants, who either have allegiances to other teams or don't care about American sports or even if they do care, can't afford to regularly go to games. And what's eye popping is that the game in question was an early season game against the Mets.

So even markets where there is high levels of disposable income/personal purchasing power per capita and lots of people are no guarantee to be good for pro sports.

[osmo]

Miami has only pursued baseball for two reasons:

Wayne Huizenga

Bud Selig

Wayne - was an obsessive South Florida booster and wanted every pro sport represented in the Miami area and was willing to do whatever it took to make it happen.

Bud Light - was obsessed with the Miami Latin factor and kept thinking that Latin people would be clamouring for baseball if Miami got a team.

Neither cared if South Florida had any interest in a professional baseball team, it was all done for other reasons, and we see today the remnants of the bad decision.

All this bodes well because I want Montreal to get the Expos back. Tampa Bay and Miami are both a joke for baseball markets, and I can see the league sacrificing Tampa Bay to ensure Miami lives on.

----

It helps when your market has money. You can afford to make more mistakes when you have a rich market or a large TV base to work from. The Islanders and Brooklyn Nets for example can continually make expensive mistakes because just by nature of being in NYC they can always ensure a war chest of money to come in via sponsors or regional TV. For how poorly run the Islanders are they still manage to bring in money, if that team were based anyplace else it would have died 15 years ago.

Miami gets to make lots of mistakes even though it has been a joke of a baseball market almost from day 1. Marlins had done well-considering ownership at each step always attempted to sabotage the team with continually stripping blue-chip prospects when it came time to pay them.

[Chef]

One thing that the Milwaukee teams have going for them is that their media market is bigger than just the Milwaukee media market. Nearly all of Wisconsin follows their teams. Even FSN which is based in Minneapolis shows the Brewers and Bucks in the Wisconsin portion of the Twin Cities metro.

[ThePhun1]

Miami sucks as a baseball market and a sports market in general. Further proof that you can't just look on a spreadsheet, see numbers and make assumptions.

[MidTenn1]

Originally Posted by suburbanite

One thing I find odd is how there is a massive contiguous chunk of the Southeast U.S. with no pro baseball. Kentucky, Tennessee, North Carolina, and South Carolina create this huge gap between the dense group of teams in the Northeast, and the Georgia and Florida teams.

There is a big hole in the map of the eastern United States where there is no American League team. Nashville would be in the middle of that hole and would be a destination for AL fans in a potential market area of up to 20 million. Fans of the Tigers, White Sox, Indians, etc. who are closer to Nashville than their favorite team would travel to one of America's major destination cities to watch a game or two.

My crude map.


I think baseball in Nashville could work, except the City won't build a stadium.

EDIT: Brewers not in AL. My bad.

[SpawnOfVulcan]

Originally Posted by MidTenn1

There is a big hole in the map of the eastern United States where there is no American League team. Nashville would be in the middle of that hole and would be a destination for AL fans in a potential market area of up to 20 million. Fans of the Tigers, White Sox, Indians, etc. who are closer to Nashville than their favorite team would travel to one of America's major destination cities to watch a game or two.

My crude map.


I think baseball in Nashville could work, except the City won't build a stadium.

HAHAHAHAHAHA

I am not at all a fan of the Braves, but if someone is suggesting that any part of Alabama will drop its loyalty to the Braves and miraculously switch to a Nashville team they are completely insane.

That awkward polygon can go ahead and remove Alabama and Georgia from its bounds.

BTW, I know that this is American vs. National League. I'm just trying to say that a Nashville MLB team (no matter the league) would never attract a significant amount of fans from Georgia or Alabama.

[ThePhun1]

There is a such thing as AL baseball fans and a regional team being in the AL would give people more of a chance to watch AL teams every year. Suddenly, people in Chattanooga and Birmingham would have a chance to watch the NL teams in Atlanta and AL teams in Nashville.

It's why it sucks they put the Astros in the NL, because now there's no NL team in the South Central US whereas every NL team used to come every season.

[ThePhun1]

Originally Posted by MidTenn1

There is a big hole in the map of the eastern United States where there is no American League team. Nashville would be in the middle of that hole and would be a destination for AL fans in a potential market area of up to 20 million. Fans of the Tigers, White Sox, Indians, etc. who are closer to Nashville than their favorite team would travel to one of America's major destination cities to watch a game or two.

My crude map.


I think baseball in Nashville could work, except the City won't build a stadium.

The biggest hole is in the interior Northwest but I suppose MLB won't take expansion bids for Casper, Wyoming or Billings, Montana, although Salt Lake City could work.

[Nomad9]

Originally Posted by ThePhun1

The NBA wasn't as big in the 70's and early 80's as it is today, let alone at it's peak in the 90's. David Robinson and Tim Duncan were just the stars that the organization and city needed to make it viable. Both were good on the court and David Robinson was a charismatic superstar off the court and, as a Navy veteran, an excellent face for the franchise in a military town. Not only were they model citizens (Duncan can be a prick and ignorant in private but is a law abiding citizen who doesn't draw many non-basketball related negative headlines) but they were great on it and helped mold the best organization in the NBA.

Without them, there's little chance the Spurs last in San Antonio. Even today, the metro area is only at 2.1 million (despite the large municipal population of 1.5 million) and it has a low level of disposable income per capita for any large MSA. Even with all of their winning, they still struggle to truly sell out games sometimes. Yes, San Antonio is barely a major league market, Austin is much better suited to host pro sports.

They aren't the only franchise for hundreds of miles, Houston has 3 (4 if you count MLS) 180-200 miles away and Dallas-Fort Worth is only 300 miles away with 4 (5). Austin and College Station are close and have big time college sports. Consider that if the Spurs aren't good in the 90's, the Rockets' golden age, then maybe San Antonio fans become Rockets fans.

The only other way they could have survived was being the only game in town, as San Antonio, until recently, had no other high level sports above high school. And UTSA is hardly what can be considered major league, so the Spurs still are it.

All you’re arguing is that if things were different, then things would be different. That could be said about literally any team.

Teams that do well, like the Spurs, can succeed despite not being a major market (especially the NBA or MLB, which are still affordable for middle class families). Packers, Cardinals, Thunder, Saints. My point is that the Spurs are now a historically great franchise in a healthy city that loves them—to suggest they’d move to Austin just because it’s wealthier and fancier is dumb.

On a different subject, there’s definitely a weird baseball vacuum in the south, but I’m not sure there are many great markets for it. Charlotte maybe? Nashville? Neither really strike me as baseball cities. Richmond is too close to DC. I’m not sure which option is best but probably Nashville...maybe they could get a good rivalry going with the Braves.

[ThePhun1]

Well Nomad, you asked why anyone would question the Spurs in San Antonio today, well there you go. They were in San Antonio long before 18k seat arenas full of club seats and suites were the norm. It was easier for an NBA team to be in a smaller market back then.

San Antonio is, even today, not a particularly large market nor wealthy. Austin is close by but outside San Marcos and Southern parts of its MSA, it's simply not realistic to be a Spurs season ticket holder living in the Austin area.

Despite two decades of success, the team struggles to fill seats at times.

What more is there not to understand? I won't say it's a miracle the Spurs are still in San Antonio but they are doing well to still be there.

Finally, I wasn't the one who suggested they move to Austin and said such a move would be unnecessary.

[JAYNYC]

Originally Posted by ThePhun1

Despite two decades of success, the team struggles to fill seats at times.

Source?

[osmo]

Originally Posted by ThePhun1

Well Nomad, you asked why anyone would question the Spurs in San Antonio today, well there you go. They were in San Antonio long before 18k seat arenas full of club seats and suites were the norm. It was easier for an NBA team to be in a smaller market back then.

San Antonio is, even today, not a particularly large market nor wealthy. Austin is close by but outside San Marcos and Southern parts of its MSA, it's simply not realistic to be a Spurs season ticket holder living in the Austin area.

Despite two decades of success, the team struggles to fill seats at times.

What more is there not to understand? I won't say it's a miracle the Spurs are still in San Antonio but they are doing well to still be there.

Finally, I wasn't the one who suggested they move to Austin and said such a move would be unnecessary.

You don't know what you're talking about.

The ABA Spurs were local legends. Ice man was a local and his flamboyant lifestyle was a mainstay with city folks in his day.

The Spurs are part of the lore of the city . You have to talk to locals to understand how it is. If the Spurs were in Chicago or Boston it would mimic Celtics or Cubs hysteria nationally.

Texas is a big place and San Antonio is a hefty independent market.

Spurs have averaged near sellouts for almost 10 years you are basing your assertion of the empty seats you see on TV which is due to traffic getting into the fairgrounds where the arena is. Spurs fans show up late into games which is the same for Miami and Toronto.

The Spurs are top 5 best run organizations in professional sports. The small market team that is worth $1.5 billion with nearly no debt. It brings in revenues that compare to much larger markets.

The Spurs rank 4th in regional TV ratings beating out much larger markets (NY, Houston, LA,).

One could say Spurs could take a dip if they start loosing bad but this won't be the case. The team is run by the best and the fans have been spoiled with over 20 years of excellence.

This nonsense needs to stop. I am far from a Spurs fan but they need thier respects paid as a model professional sports organization. The market is also worthy of praise because it is the exact way you want fans to be in your market with a deep and loyal dedication to your team.

---

Pistons need to worry about attendance as they woefully ignored the fact their fans are suburban and don't want to travel downtown for games. They were competitive most of the year and still couldn't draw flies.

[ThePhun1]

Originally Posted by JAYNYC

Source?

Sources are gonna say their attendance is great. But just because the tickets are sold doesn't mean every ticket buyer is in their seats, which means some just buy tickets to sell on the secondary market. That's why some attendance figures are quirky, the tickets are sold (except some colleges that really embellish) but they aren't bought by normal individuals for general use but rather those looking to scalp and make extra money as game time approaches.

[ThePhun1]

Originally Posted by osmo

You don't know what you're talking about.

The ABA Spurs were local legends. Ice man was a local and his flamboyant lifestyle was a mainstay with city folks in his day.

The Spurs are part of the lore of the city . You have to talk to locals to understand how it is. If the Spurs were in Chicago or Boston it would mimic Celtics or Cubs hysteria nationally.

Texas is a big place and San Antonio is a hefty independent market.

Spurs have averaged near sellouts for almost 10 years you are basing your assertion of the empty seats you see on TV which is due to traffic getting into the fairgrounds where the arena is. Spurs fans show up late into games which is the same for Miami and Toronto.

The Spurs are top 5 best run organizations in professional sports. The small market team that is worth $1.5 billion with nearly no debt. It brings in revenues that compare to much larger markets.

The Spurs rank 4th in regional TV ratings beating out much larger markets (NY, Houston, LA,).

One could say Spurs could take a dip if they start loosing bad but this won't be the case. The team is run by the best and the fans have been spoiled with over 20 years of excellence.

This nonsense needs to stop. I am far from a Spurs fan but they need thier respects paid as a model professional sports organization. The market is also worthy of praise because it is the exact way you want fans to be in your market with a deep and loyal dedication to your team.

---

Pistons need to worry about attendance as they woefully ignored the fact their fans are suburban and don't want to travel downtown for games. They were competitive most of the year and still couldn't draw flies.

What does the Ice Man and Spurs being part of local lore have to do with San Antonio's ability to support pro sports? Every place has a business that's part of local lore that couldn't stay open for a variety of reasons, including the place not being able to financially support it.

The reason the Spurs are still there is because they're a model organization. Between that and good faces like Duncan and Robinson. Thanks for making my point for me because I guarantee you if San Antonio had the Bucks or even the 76ers the last 30 years, the franchise would be on the verge of if not totally prepared to move.

[10023]

Originally Posted by ThePhun1

The biggest hole is in the interior Northwest but I suppose MLB won't take expansion bids for Casper, Wyoming or Billings, Montana, although Salt Lake City could work.

No people live there.

[ThePhun1]

That was my point. Salt Lake City is the only place that could support an AL team in that part of the Mountain West. Maybe Albuquerque but that's a stretch.

[aderwent]

Originally Posted by ThePhun1

That was my point. Salt Lake City is the only place that could support an AL team in that part of the Mountain West. Maybe Albuquerque but that's a stretch.

Baseball already has seven teams West of the Rockies, where ~21% of the U.S. lives. 7/30 is 23%. The market is already saturated. The SE could use two more teams to fill out the league. Nashville and Raleigh, perhaps.

[cannedairspray]

The problem with baseball is that it's 81 days a summer. Lots of places could support a football team because you have to make the trip 8 times all year. If the team/sport is popular enough, you can do that. Especially if you were only filling a baseball stadium (obviously, the NFL knows that which is why they have venues 3 times as large).

I have no doubt that if, in some hypothetical world, a baseball team played in Salt Lake City like 20-30 times a year, they could pack a stadium. 81 times? Maybe, but it's certainly less likely.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by aderwent

Baseball already has seven teams West of the Rockies, where ~21% of the U.S. lives. 7/30 is 23%. The market is already saturated. The SE could use two more teams to fill out the league. Nashville and Raleigh, perhaps.

A lot of those Southeast cities are bad professional sports towns, though. The urban Southeast is heavily transient, meaning sports allegiances don't correlate with place of residence, and college football is so dominant.

And I think baseball would have particular issues, given that football is bigger locally, Southeast summers are hot, humid and very wet, and baseball tends to be rooted in intergenerational traditions. It doesn't really fit modern sprawl living.